I think that, while all the above responses are valid, we may be over-thinking this. I don't think punch-ins, comps, or any tricks are necessary to simply get a clear, clean vocal track. I'm not saying all kinds of post-production isn't being used on most modern tracks. But the original question is simply "how do the artists and engineers get the words out so clearly. There is literally no spit, slurs of words and each consonant is so clean" Isn't that how a well recorded vocal track of someone who has good articulation SHOULD sound? I hear home recordings that sound clear, with no spit or pops. Nothing complicated there.
I think we're talking more about a good singer
^^^^^^^To an extremely huge extent.
A very interesting excerpt from a 1968 Mick Jagger interview;
Q - Often times when you record, you mumble your lyrics. Is this done purposely as a style ?
MJ -
That's when the bad lines come up. I mean, I don't think the lyrics are that important. I remember when I was very young, this is very serious, I read an article by Fats Domino which has really influenced me. He said "you should never sing the lyrics out very clearly".
Q - You can really hear "I got my thrill on Blueberry Hill...."
MJ -
Exactly, but that's the only thing that you can hear just like you hear 'I can't get no satisfaction'. It's true what he said though. I used to have great fun deciphering lyrics. I don't try to make them so obscure that nobody can understand but on the other hand I don't try not to.
As soon as I saw the first post, I thought of Mick Jagger and a friend of mine that's got a great voice but is a very 'lippy' singer. She talks like she sings. When she calls me on a mobile phone, I can barely make out what she's saying. So often, I have to say to her 'say that again....'. Whenever she leaves messages on our answering machine at home, I very rarely know what she's just said.
Thing is, there are lots of singers like that. I've played with loads like that and listened on records to hundreds more. The whole fun of deciphering the actual words stems primarilly from the fact { not exclusively, but primarilly} that in many of the instances, the words simply were not sung very clearly. And as Jagger alludes to in that interview, sometimes, the sonic impact and melodic place of the vocal is more important than the lyric being understood.
You know, back in the 60s and 70s, christian rock was generally thrown out of town because in terms of songs and the performing balance between instruments and vocals, it wasn't cutting it. Because the emphasis too often was on the message. So the prevailing 'wisdom' was that words had to be understood to the exclusion of all else. One thing you got on many of those records was clear voices ! But too often, lame, uninventive music.
Different people have different kinds of voices. Some enunciate their words effortlessly. Some slobber and slur their words and are hard to understand. But what matters isn't really the vocal clarity, rather the overall impact. At the same time, there are thousands of great vocal performances across the decades that are easilly understandable. Diana Ross generally was clear. Erykah Badu has a throaty, lippy voice but you can generally understand her. Singers past and present fall into all the categories.
But in the end, I agree with RAMI. Being clear and well recorded does not have to conflict with feeling, volume and intensity. It doesn't mean your vocal will be boring.
